Qwiss! wrote:
Burnwinter wrote:

In the discussion I'm seeing there's a lot of slippage between mealy-mouthed apologism (distasteful), downright casting of blame at French society (offensive) and talking practically about the origins of the violent ideological sentiments of suicide bombers and also IS's own base of infrastructure and support. 

The article from September that Gurgen linked provided some real insights into the banlieues, but also repeatedly alerts you that poverty and hardship are not uniformly found in the backgrounds of jihadis and foreign fighters. There is more going on. 

Meanwhile, this morning it has been reported that the French government has announced that the Syrian passports found on the bodies of attackers were fake—they had not been hidden among the flux of refugees into Europe. The mutually enablling political dialogue between Islamic State and the xenophobic right in Europe could not be clearer. Each grows based on the influence of the other. 

Regarding "western imperialism"—the accounting of right and wrong aside, to speak with moral authority to an international audience about the deaths of its own civilians, the western world needs to take honest ownership of the civilian casualties its military campaigns inflict overseas, reckoned at over a million Muslims (at a minimum) in different countries in the past two decades.

Yeah that Gurgen article was a real eye opened in that regard. It puts the lie to the idea these people are disenfranchised in the ways you'd expect.

I heard on the news yesterday that the passports were real but didn't belong to the attackers, at least one of them was owned by an innocent match goer.

Why did you expect that though? Bin Laden was one of the richest people on the planet. This is a very complicated issue which cannot be explained by "these people are poor", much like it cannot be explained by "Muslims are bad". 

The GOP primaries are starting to wear pretty thin for me, I have to say.

Gurgen wrote:

Why did you expect that though? Bin Laden was one of the richest people on the planet. This is a very complicated issue which cannot be explained by "these people are poor", much like it cannot be explained by "Muslims are bad". 

Bin Laden wasn't a suicide bomber either, he was another kind of hate-filled maniac altogether. The question is what kind of person is so resentful and holds their life so cheap they're willing to blow themselves up to kill others? As that New Yorker article narrates, many people believe it's "fragiles" in the Muslim community and its fringes who are at risk.

The reaction to his comments are even more bizarre. The argument may be unsound, but it is based on a particular premise. The gop motto of "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun". The premise may be untrue, but the hysterical reaction to these comments are just absurd. Yes, the timing is poor, but that applies to a lot of things said in the aftermath of all disasters. 

jones wrote:

I'm factoring in the gravity of consequences yuvken, we're just looking at completely different possible outcomes. I disagree completely with the idea of state harm being limited in its nature and there are loads of examples I could give as for my reason for that. I trust the state as far as I can throw it, both because of personal experience as well as political reasons; Germany's most notable example being (proven) large right wing extremist factions in police, state attorney offices and intelligence agencies actively hindering investigations in the Bosphorus serial murder case.

Just a few days ago it came to light that German intelligence agencies weren't only doing the NSA's job in large scale surveillance but were spying on everyone themselves for more than a decade already, including EU and US citizens, NGOs like Oxfam or the WHO, the FBI and even the fucking Vatican. They were even caught having wired the phone of the foreign minister of France. The same country that did all of this somehow couldn't stop a group of three Nazis who carried out ten murders, two nailbomb attacks and more than a dozen bank robberies during a run of more than 15 years? Regardless of whether it's incompetence or maleficence, handing them even more power doesn't seem like the smartest idea. I'd say even if they had good intentions a group that abuses its means as recklessly as the BND does is more likely to cause damage by accident than actually protecting their citizens.

Reading this I wondered if you felt I'm actually endorsing more government power in general... my point was merely theoretical, in essence, "how it works", and a suggestion about where we stand now in that regard (though a very blurry one). It only says that the worse conditions are the more any liberal/individual outlook countries will have to compromise their ideal for the sake of other, less appealing ones, as that specific ideal just cannot be sustained as long as certain conditions aren't changed. The spectrum goes from "utopia", or serene conditions, worsening until absolute devastation (WW2 or such).

Your Germany example is not even the worst... it is basically like that everywhere, and in many cases worse. But what do you figure is the situation even when all is well? basically just as you described it anyway. And the security vs individual rights equilibrium in that relatively good situation already involves much intrusion 
and state infringement of rights (as you described and further). Does that mean that when the status quo is shifted to the worse - circumstances become more threatening, mass terrorist attacks reality etc. - that "we won't let the government take more anti-liberal measures, as they are way beyond what we want them to be anyway"? that would be an understandable position, in the ideal level. But it might be unsustainable in the pragmatic level (as too many will die; as liberal value will mean not much, as no individual can just live safely - there's no individual freedom when individuals are fighting for their lives.

I do hope we won't need to go too far down that line - I basically feel the same as you about government power, etc. But we will be seeing some of it, make no mistake.

Burnwinter wrote:

The GOP primaries are starting to wear pretty thin for me, I have to say.

Gurgen wrote:

Why did you expect that though? Bin Laden was one of the richest people on the planet. This is a very complicated issue which cannot be explained by "these people are poor", much like it cannot be explained by "Muslims are bad". 

Bin Laden wasn't a suicide bomber either, he was another kind of hate-filled maniac altogether. The question is what kind of person is so resentful and holds their life so cheap they're willing to blow themselves up to kill others? As that New Yorker article narrates, many people believe it's "fragiles" in the Muslim community and its fringes who are at risk.

If you are deeply religious, your life on Earth is merely a preparation and a test for the afterlife. So for people who truly believe all that crap, it's not that weird an idea. To actually do it requires crossing a certain line though and I guess it's a certain type of person that's susceptible to that.

By the way, half of the attackers are from Molenbeek, a Brussels ghetto I lived next to last year 😆 Everyone in Brussels always jokes about Molenbeek being the capital of European jihad, turns out it's kind of true.

Can't really get inside the mind of someone who'd suicide for God. I can imagine being willing to die for a cause under particular circumstances, that's about as far as I get. However I reckon Bin Laden and IS suicide bombers are completely different psychological types.

Yeah, I read that about Molenbeek. I understand it actually does fit the "socially disadvantaged" profile? What's your take on it since you're familiar, is it a hard scrabble sort of place?

Gurgen wrote:
Qwiss! wrote:

Yeah that Gurgen article was a real eye opened in that regard. It puts the lie to the idea these people are disenfranchised in the ways you'd expect.

I heard on the news yesterday that the passports were real but didn't belong to the attackers, at least one of them was owned by an innocent match goer.

Why did you expect that though? Bin Laden was one of the richest people on the planet. This is a very complicated issue which cannot be explained by "these people are poor", much like it cannot be explained by "Muslims are bad". 

Well Bin Laden wasn't on the front lines, nor was he a European. That article talks about European Muslims turning militant. I know of quite a few people locally who were in the IRA for instance and none of them have comfortable middle class backgrounds. So I had figured its was likely the same with these European born Jihadists.

You're missing the part where suicide isn't allowed in Islam or any religion. So if they were thinking of afterlife then suicide wouldn't be something they would do.

It seems more like a political movement for power and the only way they can get attention is through these acts.

It's common sense in the end. I'd be willing to bet it'd be a lot harder to convince a religious individual who happens to be an Oxford graduate on a six figure salary to give up his life and go on a killing spree than someone who isn't religious in the slightest but has a background of poverty and crime.

I also don't think it's a coincidence that's it's generally guys who are relatively young, being recruited by older guys who would probably never dream of doing it themselves.

Thanks for that one Kel, good bit of reading.

Burnwinter wrote:

Can't really get inside the mind of someone who'd suicide for God. I can imagine being willing to die for a cause under particular circumstances, that's about as far as I get. However I reckon Bin Laden and IS suicide bombers are completely different psychological types.

Yeah, I read that about Molenbeek. I understand it actually does fit the "socially disadvantaged" profile? What's your take on it since you're familiar, is it a hard scrabble sort of place?

It's a shithole for sure, but it does not have the same sense of isolation that the banlieues have, judging from that New Yorker piece. If you want to get out of Molenbeek, you cross a bridge and you are immediately in one of the most hip parts of town (St. Catherine). The Grand Place is a 10-15 minute metro ride away. Brussels is fairly unique in that the bad neighbourhoods are not necessarily on the outskirts of the city. It's also good to keep in mind that everything is relative: it's a shithole compared to good neighbourhoods in Western European cities, but I suspect living conditions are still much better than in your average Middle Eastern city. I have lived in similar neighbourhoods as an immigrant in the Netherlands. Growing up in such a place can never be an excuse for becoming a criminal or a terrorist really. You always have the opportunity to get yourself out of there, certainly in the welfare states of Western Europe. Sure it's harder, you have to fight prejudice and we should do more to avoid such gettos being created in the first place, but we shouldn't blame everything on the environment in which people grow up. After all, Thierry Henry grew up in the banlieues and he turned out fine 😉

Ray wrote:

You're missing the part where suicide isn't allowed in Islam or any religion. So if they were thinking of afterlife then suicide wouldn't be something they would do.

It seems more like a political movement for power and the only way they can get attention is through these acts.

They don't see it as suicide, they legitimize it as an attack on infidels in which someone sacrifices himself - i.e. martyrdom. 

Gurgen wrote:
Burnwinter wrote:

Can't really get inside the mind of someone who'd suicide for God. I can imagine being willing to die for a cause under particular circumstances, that's about as far as I get. However I reckon Bin Laden and IS suicide bombers are completely different psychological types.

Yeah, I read that about Molenbeek. I understand it actually does fit the "socially disadvantaged" profile? What's your take on it since you're familiar, is it a hard scrabble sort of place?

It's a shithole for sure, but it does not have the same sense of isolation that the banlieues have, judging from that New Yorker piece. If you want to get out of Molenbeek, you cross a bridge and you are immediately in one of the most hip parts of town (St. Catherine). The Grand Place is a 10-15 minute metro ride away. Brussels is fairly unique in that the bad neighbourhoods are not necessarily on the outskirts of the city. It's also good to keep in mind that everything is relative: it's a shithole compared to good neighbourhoods in Western European cities, but I suspect living conditions are still much better than in your average Middle Eastern city. I have lived in similar neighbourhoods as an immigrant in the Netherlands. Growing up in such a place can never be an excuse for becoming a criminal or a terrorist really. You always have the opportunity to get yourself out of there, certainly in the welfare states of Western Europe. Sure it's harder, you have to fight prejudice and we should do more to avoid such gettos being created in the first place, but we shouldn't blame everything on the environment in which people grow up. After all, Thierry Henry grew up in the banlieues and he turned out fine 😉

truly special people will get out of any environment and be successful. they are the exception, not the rule.

anyway i don't see the point of european immigration. why let them in if you have no plan on assimilating them and giving them opportunity? are you just letting them in out of some liberal guilt so you can feel good about yourself: well we have a robust welfare state so if the more conservative business types don't want to hire them and will discriminate they can get benefits even though there is no dignity in that.  :doh:

my experience with american immigration is that immigrants are coming here for opportunity, not welfare and they are the least likely to be on welfare (legal immigrants that is because illegal immigrants don't qualify anyway).

I am not saying immigrants are on welfare, I mean the welfare state gives you the opportunity to study and look for work by supporting you when you are unemployed. Discrimination is a fact of life - every foreigner in every country is discriminated against to some extent (and discrimination in countries where immigrants come from is usually much, much worse - you should see how black people are treated in Armenia and Russia for example). It shouldn't happen and we should fight it, but in the mean time you have to deal with it and move on if you want to make something of yourself. I have also been discriminated against but I have found that such sentiments quickly disappear when you prove you are capable.

Gurgen wrote:

I am not saying immigrants are on welfare, I mean the welfare state gives you the opportunity to study and look for work by supporting you when you are unemployed. Discrimination is a fact of life - every foreigner in every country is discriminated against to some extent (and discrimination in countries where immigrants come from is usually much, much worse - you should see how black people are treated in Armenia and Russia for example). It shouldn't happen and we should fight it, but in the mean time you have to deal with it and move on if you want to make something of yourself. I have also been discriminated against but I have found that such sentiments quickly disappear when you prove you are capable.

i wasn't saying that's your opinion, really just quoted you for the thierry part and not challenging on you on anything really. 

that article about the banlieues mentioned something about a mother getting money as long as the kid remained in school. i think it's just too easy for countries like france to overlook the rampant discrimination and then basically use the welfare state as a crutch because folks aren't out there starving and have a roof over their heads. no accountant should be told by some job agency that if they could only have a paris mailing address they would stand a better chance of getting a job. that's a culture that's rotten. you gotta get the job first before you can prove yourself. keep that nonsense up and they won't like what their society will turn into pretty soon. again if you're not going to treat them right, don't let them in. you're just importing problems.

Gurgen wrote:
Burnwinter wrote:

[size=small]Thierry Henry grew up in the banlieues and he turned out fine [/size]😉

Turned out pretty explosive, if you ask me  😃

I am with Jones here, largely, when it comes to state surveillance. I DO worry about a European Patriot Act, and there is already scary technology available. That is, the technology is fucking brilliant, but I certainly don't want governments given some sort of carte Blanche how to use it, because it WILL be abused. 
Saw this the other day, and that is scary stuff. Please note, that this is a commercial from a leading US defense contractor, so it really isn't pie in the sky stuff.